Another question related to LOM as described in DS-TE-PROTO

["Choudhury, Sanjaya" <Sanjaya.Choudhury@marconi.com>]

Hi Francois! I have one more question related to 
usage of LOM as described in the DS-TE-PROTO.

Assume (simple admission control scheme):
CT    		LOM    BC
-----------------------------
CT1   		200%   100M
CT0(CT1+CT2)	400%	 200M

1) create lsp1 BW 20M ct=ct1 then
   CT1_AVAIL_BW=100-20/2=90M
   CT0_AVAIL_BW=200-20/2=190M (and *not* 200-20/4=195m) 
Am I correct?

Thanks,
sanjay
             

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Choudhury, Sanjaya [mailto:Sanjaya.Choudhury@marconi.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 1:42 PM
> To: 'Francois Le Faucheur'; te-wg@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: question related to DS-TE-PROTO: Does advertised 
> unreserved bw
> ta ke LOM into account ?
> 
> 
> 
>  Hi! Here is a question related to DS-TE-PROTO-3 draft. 
>   
>    Is the following assumption correct ?
> 
>    The  per-TE-Class unreserved bandwidth advertised by IGPs, are
>    the actual bandwidth available for the TE-Class [i.e 
> _without_ taking
>    the LOM into account.] 
> 
>    The PCM of the a LSR may use the advertised unreserved BW and 
>    value from the LOM TLV, to decide (/predict), whether it should use
>    a specific link.
> 
>    A simplistic example: 
>       (i)   Assume the actual link bw 100M
>       (ii)   Only CT0 is supported (and only 1 preemption priority
> supported)
>      (iii)  LOM[0] = 200%
>     
>      Case-1: No LSPs have been established
> 
>                  Assumption:
>                  -------------
> 	      In this case the Adv bw is   100M  (and not 200M)
>                   [Although 200M worth of CT0 connections can be 
>                    established]
> 
>       Case-2: 1 LSP with 50M bandwidth has been established
>  
>                   Assumption:
>                   --------------
>                   In this case the Adv bw is  = 100 -50/2 = 
> 75M (and not 200
> -50 = 150M)
>              
> Thanks,
> sanjay                  
> 
>    
>